March 25, 2016

Hillary Could Win My Vote

Hillary On Area 51 Secrets: ‘I Think We Ought To Share It With The Public’ [VIDEO]

Hillary Clinton says barring any national security risk, she would like to open up the government files on Area 51 to the public if she is elected president.

“I would like us to go into those files and hopefully make as much of that public as possible,” she told Jimmy Kimmel Thursday night on his late night ABC talk show. “If there’s nothing there, let’s tell people there’s nothing there.”

I love it! Not just the most transparent administration in history, like Barack, but the most transparent administration in the galaxy! And since you'd have to believe in UFOs to believe her emails scheme was on the up and up, this should hit her target audience wherever they live.

But don't ask about those Goldman Sachs transcripts, Those will remain out of this world.

Heh, the good ol' time value of money. Who invented that? There to fix the blame.

We've all heard Shakespeare's 'Never a blah blah blah', but I sort of prefer the take of, I believe, Rabelais, who much preferred to be a borrower for then the lender wished you all prosperity and luck, but were you a lender, the borrower would prefer you died and forgot the loan.

It has got to be the water on the coasts that is making these people so delirious. The silly season used to be well defined as the dog days of August when all of the grownups were at the beach. Now it's 24/7 year round.

Obama told a bunch of Argentine teens that there's no real difference between capitalism and communism except for the 100 - 150 million bodies, of course.

And another thing. I expect the aliens they ind in Area 51 will be the kindly, helpful sort who will solve global warming as they suck our precious bodily fluids.

We're going to have a showing of "Idiocracy" this weekend and you're all invited. It's been re-classified as a documentary.

At first I thought this was implying she didn't know about the Groom Lake test facility in Nevada. Which would've meant she was a moron and entirely unsuitable to be running for Prez. But listening to the video, it's apparent she's talking about the Air Force's UFO files, which is a completely different subject.

So as much as I'd like to accuse her of the former . . . at least based on this . . . I really can't.

Free James D!, the only thing I saw was the NBA was reevaluating whether it could hold its All-Star Game in Charlotte given North Carolina's outrageous law that might prevent a dong waver who identified as a female from using the Ladies Room. The inhumanity!

I have no idea whether the Cruz loose zipper stories are true or not. But let's assume for the moment that they are.

How on earth could a candidate running as a conservative Christian not keep his zipper up, at least during the campaign? These sorts of stories always seem to bubble to the surface. What, this time it's different?

My main focus on the Cruz story is the dumbing down of words. I've heard the ladies who might be the subject of Cruz's supposed flings and one time stands referred to as mistresses. When men were men, a mistress was a woman well kept by the man in the context of an ongoing private relationship A man should not be credited with having five mistresses simply because he has johnson control issues.

Dems can get away with it, sometimes (not Edwards, whose affair was also broken by the Enquirer). Repubs never can. Especially a preachy guy like Cruz who is always quoting Scripture and is basically central casting for a conservative Christian pastor with zipper problems.

No wonder he couldn't get any Senate endorsements. Poor Jeb. Who wants to be the last guy to endorse a serial adulterer?

#TheThing reminds me of that Ron Rosenbaum story in 2007 where he claimed to have knowledge that other outlets were sitting on a major scandal but didn't know whether he should break it or not. Of course he claimed it wasn't "the Edwards rumor," but nobody believed him.

re: Cruz If anyone thinks that an ambitious man like Cruz would have flings with 5 ladies and then run for President with that in his background you are nuts! I'm quite frankly shocked that some of you are even entertaining the thought that this might be true.

On July 8, 1947, witnesses claim that a spaceship with five aliens aboard crashed on a sheep-and-clattle ranch outside Roswell, NM, in incident they say has been covered up by the government. On March 31, 1948, exactly nine months after that day, Al Gore was born. That clears up a lot of things.

Until the National Enq has pictures like they did with John Edwards, there is no reason to take the story seriously. I mean, the NE runs stories on Obama and Hillary and their alleged antics all the time. I see no mileage out of them even in these precincts.

Besides, does anyone really think, based on past record, that Trump is remotely faithful to his current spouse? Seriously?

I am reminded of a disgusting book -- Hollywood Babylon -- written by a rather disgusting man. There's no reason to believe much of the garbage dished in that book, but since the writer was repulsive, and presumably had insight into being repulsive, his stuff was believed all over the place. (And a lot of the legends originated by that book continue to pollute film history).

Support Trump if you must, but be careful about embracing the scandals that suddenly surround those who attack him. Trump isn't above dishing lies early and often.

Texas Liberty Gal, although I hope it's not true, I think National Enquirer is pretty careful when they run these stories on prominent pols. I'll bet they have credible sources (although even supposedly credible sources can lie and exaggerate, to be sure).

You might slow your roll long enough to consider the source. The Enquirer is at minimal spotty on stories, and that is before before you consider the Enquirer has formally endorsed Trump several weeks ago. The story seems to quote only one guy, and that is guy in Trump's campaign. Everything else is heard it from a friend who heard it from a friend who says some private investigators are investigating. Anyone one think Trump is above a false rumor attack through friendly sources? If yes, come buy this shiny new bridge I own free and clear...

This is different from a story on a known escapader such as Bill Clinton. National Enquirer is trying to take down a current prominent POTUS candidate who doesn't have a reputation as a philanderer. Plus, this would have more focused vetting than a story in which National Enquirer gets some prof to speculate on UFOs from Neptune morphing into nanoparticles and attacking the water system.

How is it that you think this Cruz story is scurrilous unfounded trash that should be shunned but it's okay for you to assert that "based on past record" Trump is definitely cheating on his current wife?

The fact that Trump is classified as a National Enquirer fave, common man, is going to make the National Enquirer even more careful if the purpose is to take Cruz down. As CT points out at 3:45 PM, this could backfire on Trump. National Enquirer is unlikely to have gone off half cocked on this story.

It's based on past behavior, and conduct he's boasted about on the Howard Stern show over the years. He might have changed, but there is no compelling reason to believe he has.

Porch, honest to gosh, you guys have pinned your hopes on someone who, to every appearance, is a genuinely bad man. Since LBJ probably fit that category too, it might work out OK. But there's no reason to believe it will.

Unfortunately, they hurt Cruz too even if they are not true at all, both because of the kind of assumptions we're seeing right here and because of the time wasted addressing them instead of campaign issues.

Repeating a caution I voiced on the last thread, I wouldn't necessarily assume that the Enquirer must have something. For every John Edwards or Tiger Woods story, they've also published mountains of salacious, unsubstantiated, innuendos, and well-known politicians have less recourse than almost any other targets.

JMH, I acknowledge that as a public figure, Cruz is in a more vulnerable position for these stories. However, I don't think National Enquirer would rely solely on NYT v. Sullivan in a case in which the subject is a current legitimate POTUS contender. Once again, I'm not saying the Cruz multiple liaisons story is true, but I believe National Enquirer has sourced this more carefully than most of its other scandal stories.

What I find ominous is that, while now even the MSM is reporting on this story, the one place where there has been nary a peep is Drudge. The guy who gave us the blue dress. And who is now a blatant Trump supporter.

And we live in age where you don't just sneak off to a motel room together on the QT. You've got to sext naked selfies to each other.

And I wish I could believe that Cruz wouldn't be so stupid, but he's a guy, so . . .

I'm holding out hope that it isn't true, but I am worried.

---

Appalled, if it turns out to be true, what's going to hurt Cruz the most is not that he had the affairs, but that he campaigned on evangelical Christian values and even had Glen Beck out there alluding that he is the equivalent of the Second Coming (the one thing that has always bothered me about Cruz, even if I did vote for him.)

Trump has never cloaked himself in holy righteousness. Heck, the Ivana affair was all over the not just the tabloids but the MSM for months. People are way more willing to forgive the sin, than they are the the hypocrisy.

National Enquirer is unlikely to have gone off half cocked on this story.

There are several past high visibility lawsuits that suggest otherwise. And from the few quotes I've seen (something about private investigators "digging into" affairs he "supposedly" had), there is a lot of built-in deniability to the story.

The Enquirer running it could backfire on the Donald by itself, but if his supporters run with it and then it proves false, it's going to leave a mark.

Porch, honest to gosh, you guys have pinned your hopes on someone who, to every appearance, is a genuinely bad man.

I don't think that's what anyone here is doing. I think everyone here who defends Trump or pushes back against his critics would rather have someone else (Cruz, Walker, Fiorino, whomever).

It's more a matter of acknowledging the reality that:

(1) he's the frontrunner, and will at worst go into the convention with more delegates than anyone else (and more likely go into it with enough delegates to either win on the first ballot or come within a hair of that).

(2) dislodging him from that position, either now or during the convention, will basically blow up the party and guarantee a Hillary victory in November.

(3) he is raising issues that resonate with a lot of people out there, and which have gone unaddressed by the GOP leadership basically forever, and those people are clearly tired of being ignored, lied to or told to just go off and die already.

Given that, I think the people here who are, while not necessarily Trump supporters, accepting of him as the likely nominee in November, are just trying to make the best of the situation we find ourselves in.

CT, I think it's going to backfire on Trump even if National Enquirer has incriminating pics of Cruz. If GOP pooh-bahs think National Enquirer took down Cruz for Trump, they will decide that bringing down Trump in Cleveland is worth whatever risk that entails.

I hadn't read about that one, Texas Liberty Gal. Was it a story claiming real mistresses or, as in the Cruz case, flings? I could easily believe that Obama has had at least 12 flings of various sorts. For that matter, 12 flings for any man or woman of at least middle age is hardly a stunning number. Five even less so, especially for those with the opportunity.

I voted for Cruz for Senator and was happy to do so. I also defended him here during the shutdown when a lot of folks were coming down on him. Over the course of the campaign, I liked him less and less, and lost my confidence that he could win.

If it's going to be Clash of the Titans, I want the guy who can fell Medusa.

If GOP pooh-bahs think National Enquirer took down Cruz for Trump, they will decide that bringing down Trump in Cleveland is worth whatever risk that entails.

If Trump goes into the convention with more than 50% of the delegates, he'll win (the primary . . . he's still running double digits behind Hillary for the general). If he goes in with less than that, they're going to take him down (and should, because he's running double digits behind Hillary). I don't think this story changes anything in that dynamic in a meaningful way . . . except in the likelihood that he'll fail to reach the goal.

OK, if this Cruz stuff is true, let's just say "Who cares?" and "MYOB".
It's between Heidi and Ted, not us. Just like all the Ds.
And I'm OK with it--if the guy has enough testosterone to run around, maybe he has enough to stand up to Ds and get himself elected.

My spouse knows well he'd wake up with his balls stuffed in his mouth some morning if this ever happened here---
Not really. But he thinks it would, so that's all that matters. I do NOT want to ever get a sexually transmitted disease like cervical cancer.

I think the other thing everybody can agree on is Cruz is super smart. To think he would run having this in his background is laughable.

I'm not commenting one way or the other about whether the story is true or not, but the fact that he's super smart doesn't mean a thing.

History is chock-full of incredibly smart, politically savvy men who thought they could never be touched. Until the day they learned that wasn't true and they watched their whole career go down the toilet due to an affair (or some other personal failing).

Yep, Donald is friends with the Enquirer guy. I don't know why that makes a difference. This was rumored for weeks and it was the Rubio people who wanted it to break before Super Tuesday to help Rubio overtake Cruz.

Once Rubio dropped out, those people, many of whom were NeverTrumpers, didn't want it to come out because it would obviously help the Donald.

OK, if this Cruz stuff is true, let's just say "Who cares?" and "MYOB".

Slight problem. If true, Cruz would have been willing to run for his party's nomination and then the general knowing that this stuff was very likely to come out at any time, thus ruining his chances and his party's chances and potentially destroying his marriage and family.

Not only that, he chose to run as the smarmy preacher, so that if it did break, it would do maximum damage.

Who would do that?

It's not just one affair that maybe he told his wife about and begged for forgiveness. If true (your premise again), it's at least five women.

I'm really surprised that so many of my friends here are summarily dismissing this story as bogus. Sure, it could be National Enquirer simply publishing speculation by those who are out to get Cruz. But to dismiss it summarily? I have to disagree respectfully with that view.

CT, I think GOP is more likely to take the nomination away from a 50% plus one Trump if Cruz's campaign is destroyed by this, even if National Enquirer has the goods. GOP will decide it has had enough of Trump, whether or not it has proof Trump was behind this.

But to bring some perspective on this: Viewed against some of the 19th century POTUS elections, this is kid stuff. Rumor, innuendo, reckless behavior and downright score settling is always a part of politics. Sometimes it bubbles and sometimes it bubbles over. We may be seeing the bubbling over in this case. And we don't even have the final report on The Hill yet.

As far as this being inconsistent with Cruz's persona, there is one person in American public life, dead or alive, about whom I would be 100% stunned to have something like this proven: George Catlett Marshall. Everyone else? I might be very surprised or skeptical, but not 100% stunned.

Have any of the pictured women outright claimed she did have a "fling" with Ted? These days the National Enquirer doesn't have to prove a damn thing, does it? And because it's Cruz, it's double damning, because, of course, a shameless philanderer is morally superior to a hypocrite. Is there anything Trump supporters won't excuse?

He didn't shop the story around; the Rubio people did. There is evidence of that.

He objected to the picture of his wife being posted in an ad. Perfectly justifable, in my opinion.

He did not threaten anything about Heidi, except he would spill the beans on her, which he did today, and it was all her ties to Goldman Sachs, the Bush Administration, the FEC, NAFTA, and the COuncil of Foreign Relations.

As far as I can see, the only thing he did that was questionable was poking Cruz by mentioning the Enquirer had gotten some stories right.